The Boy Scouts of America's Philadelphia chapter has sued the City of Philadelphia in federal court to block the city's May 31 deadline for the scouts to open membership to gays and atheists, or vacate their historic 1928 headquarters off Logan Square. The civil rights lawsuit, filed Friday in federal court in Center City, contends that the city's ultimatum violates the scouts' rights under the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions.

"The City has imposed an unconstitutional condition upon Cradle of Liberty's receipt of a benefit that Cradle of Liberty has enjoyed for nearly eight decades, and that many other organizations that limit members or services to members of a particular group continue to enjoy without punishment or the threat of punishment," the scouts' lawsuit reads.

City Solicitor Shelley R. Smith said the city would respond to the federal lawsuit and would likely file an eviction motion next week.

In the meantime, Smith added, the beginning of litigation would preserve the status quo pending a court ruling. Until that ruling occurs, Smith said, the scouts will be able to continue using the headquarters building.

The suit asks the court to permanently block city officials from attempting to evict the Scouts from their building, which sits on a half-acre of city land at 22d and Winter Streets.

The Cradle of Liberty Council's predicament is one that has faced local scouting councils nationwide since a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case the scouts won.

The national organization appealed the ruling in a suit filed by an openly gay New Jersey scout barred from serving as a troop leader.

Scouts must swear an oath "to God and my country" and to "obey the Scout Law" that includes keeping oneself "physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight."

Ok. I guess with a little research we could find another private organization with restrictive membership using a public building in Philly...say the girl scouts?

Girls Scouts don't exclude people based on sexual orientation. But if the Scouts could locate a group with restrictive membership that does use public facilities then that would go a long way towards knocking the legs out from under the city's case. If I were them I'd check out any country clubs or private clubs in the city,or the rowing clubs along the Schuylkill River.

no because the city is saying the $1 a year deal would be allow IF the scouts complied with the city’s view of recreational sex.

It is NOT equal treatment because another pro-homosexual group would get the enhanced benefit.

It is UNequal treatment based on the scout’s conscience.

If the city wanted to go with clean hands they would have to charge EVERYONE exactly the same. They are not. You can get preferential treatment if you agree that one man playing with another man’s genitals is somehow “normal”.

no because the city is saying the $1 a year deal would be allow IF the scouts complied with the citys view of recreational sex.

That's one way of putting it I suppose. But the Scouts are free to say 'No' to the city and there is nothing the city can do to force the Scouts to admit homosexuals. At the same time there is nothing the Scouts can do to force the city to subsidize their headquarters, either.

It is NOT equal treatment because another pro-homosexual group would get the enhanced benefit.

And what group would that be?

It is UNequal treatment based on the scouts conscience.

If the Scouts can show that other organizations with similar exclusive membership policies have been allowed to use city property then they would probably win their case.

If the city wanted to go with clean hands they would have to charge EVERYONE exactly the same. They are not. You can get preferential treatment if you agree that one man playing with another mans genitals is somehow normal.

I hate to be a stickler but several folks have called me out on this point. According to http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/dec/07121107.html

The famous Beaux Arts style building was built and paid for by the Scouts, and turned over to the city

I would like to see the agreement where they turned it over to the city. If they did it based solely on the 1928 ordinance without a seperate agreement spelling out the terms then they might not have a lot to stand on.

Those were much more innocent times. Today no one would dream of turning over their property to a city government without an air-tight contract spelling out all of the terms and allowing stipulations for the person or nonprofit to get their property back. At the very least since it sits on city land, they should have stipulated that they have option to sell it to the city for fair market value. If the rent for just the land is $200k a year, then it is very valuable property indeed.

Philadelphia is violating the Scouts constitutional right to association which the SOTUS already established. Philly officials should go to jail.

Not at all. The Scouts are free to continue restricting their membership. Philly is saying that they just need to do it in another building.

That's fair enough, if the city owns the property free and clear. It doesn't; the city is contractually obligated to rent the property to the Boy Scouts for $1 per year. I'm sure the Boy Scouts could be compensated for the abrogation of that contract. How much? The city has stipulated how much rent the building is worth; if the city wants out of the contract, the price for doing so is obviously that annual rent figure - divided by the interest rate the scouts can obtain at zero risk, in perpetuity.

59
posted on 05/27/2008 6:16:38 PM PDT
by conservatism_IS_compassion
(The conceit of journalistic objectivity is profoundly subversive of democratic principle.)

That's fair enough, if the city owns the property free and clear. It doesn't; the city is contractually obligated to rent the property to the Boy Scouts for $1 per year.

The city does own the property and if there was a contrct with the Boy Scouts then we wouldn't be having this discussion. There was, apparently, an informal agreement which the city has chosen to void.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.